CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods
Home

Methods
Datasets
Rankings
RNA 2D Atlas

Help
FAQ

Contact us
RSS feeds
Twitter

Table of contents:

  1. Overview

  2. Performance Plots

  3. Performance of TurboFold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for TurboFold(seed) & NanoFolder [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric TurboFold(seed) NanoFolder
MCC 0.435 > 0.306
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.422 ± 0.244 > 0.334 ± 0.194
Sensitivity 0.369 > 0.328
Positive Predictive Value 0.518 > 0.293
Total TP 99 > 88
Total TN 48566 > 48457
Total FP 125 < 244
Total FP CONTRA 11 < 35
Total FP INCONS 81 < 177
Total FP COMP 33 > 32
Total FN 169 < 180
P-value 0.0

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of TurboFold(seed) and NanoFolder. Positive Predictive Value (PPV) is plotted against sensitivity. Each dot represents a single test of each method. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for TurboFold(seed) and NanoFolder).

  2. Average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were plotted for different RNA families, for which at least 3 members were present in the benchmarking dataset. 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate the average and CI. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for TurboFold(seed) and NanoFolder).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for TurboFold(seed) and NanoFolder. The whiskers correspond to 95% confidence intervals (CIs). 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate average MCCs and CIs. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for TurboFold(seed) and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of TurboFold(seed) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for TurboFold(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 99
Total TN 48566
Total FP 125
Total FP CONTRA 11
Total FP INCONS 81
Total FP COMP 33
Total FN 169
Total Scores
MCC 0.435
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.422 ± 0.244
Sensitivity 0.369
Positive Predictive Value 0.518
Nr of predictions 8

^top



2. Individual counts for TurboFold(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1525 15 2 13 0 20
3J3E_8 0.17 0.15 0.21 5 7479 28 2 17 9 28
3J3F_8 0.39 0.36 0.42 13 12215 32 2 16 14 23
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 0 6 0 23
4A1C_2 0.15 0.15 0.15 5 11748 37 3 25 9 28
4AOB_A 0.56 0.40 0.77 17 4349 6 1 4 1 25
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10
4JF2_A 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 12

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 88
Total TN 48457
Total FP 244
Total FP CONTRA 35
Total FP INCONS 177
Total FP COMP 32
Total FN 180
Total Scores
MCC 0.306
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.334 ± 0.194
Sensitivity 0.328
Positive Predictive Value 0.293
Nr of predictions 8

^top



2. Individual counts for NanoFolder [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.52 0.55 0.50 11 1518 11 0 11 0 9
3J3E_8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7466 47 6 31 10 33
3J3F_8 0.27 0.33 0.22 12 12192 54 9 33 12 24
4A1C_3 0.48 0.46 0.51 25 7091 24 2 22 0 29
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11728 61 12 41 8 33
4AOB_A 0.33 0.29 0.39 12 4340 20 1 18 1 30
4ENC_A 0.57 0.58 0.58 11 1307 9 0 8 1 8
4JF2_A 0.51 0.55 0.49 17 2815 18 5 13 0 14

^top


Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.